Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already signal readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful transparency beyond them: no credentials needed, per-query prepaid cost, data is publicly available, not confidential, and customers are LGPD controllers. This gives an agent a strong risk and compliance picture without contradicting the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps the additional credential, payment, and legal context compact. There is minor repetition between 'fonte oficial' and 'fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros', but overall every sentence carries useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is strong for legal and payment context, but it does not define input requirements or expected output, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. For a simple consultation tool it is minimally viable, but adding the CPF/CNPJ rule and what the CEAT response contains would make it complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the CPF/CNPJ parameters, whether either is required, how they should be formatted, or if both can be used. The schema only provides property names and string types, leaving the agent to guess invocation requirements.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies a specific action and resource: 'Tribunal TRT3: Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas (CEAT), consulta em fonte oficial.' It uses a concrete verb (consulta) and explicitly names the official source and document type, which also distinguishes it from the generic sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides useful operational context—no platform credentials, prepaid credits, official source, LGPD responsibility—but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over any alternative or when not to use it. Usage is reasonably implied but not clearly framed as decision guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.